You have access to this content through your organization’s enterprise subscription to the Aviation Week Intelligence Network (AWIN). Would you like to go there now? Your choice will be remembered until you close your browser.

Kratos Combat Drones Go On The Offensive

The dawn of the limited-life combat drone is rapidly approaching as Kratos Defense & Security Solutions Inc., a rising star of the Third Offset, doubles down on development of a $3 million V-tail UAV, internally designated XQ-222.
Kratos specializes in building subscale aerial targets designed to mimic Russian and Chinese weapons, and is now adapting them for real-world combat use by the Defense Department as armed, autonomous aircraft, able to be produced in great quantities at a ...

Discuss this Article 13

And how many of these can"we" get for the cost of one F-35 ? I they can also mimic the signatures of the adversary's vehicles that alone would be worth it especially if they are high fidelity. A swarm that overwhelms the sensors of the "other side" would make up for our lack of planes n ships !
Plus if they can deliver just one strike it means that they can't be ignored. Sounds too good to be true - so let's see it work !

UCAV's have to be so much cheaper than a manned craft even if it were the same size. Just not having a cockpit (instruments, ejections seat, glazing, life support, triple redundancy, etc.) has to knock a big chunk of cost out of the system. If they're shot down, you just have to make sure that the control systems self-destruct completely, but you don't have to rescue anyone or deal with the aftermath of capture (G_d forbid). My guess is you could get 10 for 1 F35 (or maybe more).

Leaving out all the systems makes a lighter aircraft that could perform as well with a smaller/cheaper power plant.

UCAVs can maneuver at any amount of Gs that keep the airframe from flying apart. Manned craft are restricted to 9gs or less. They could maneuver at the same rates as the missiles trying to get them.

-"you just have to make sure that the control systems self-destruct completely," - One would think this is a no brainer, yet why didn't the RQ-170 that landed at an Iranian airfield have this capability? Instead we're told "it's all off the shelf technology". Yeah right uh huh.

Because of the number of times they've lost a UAV because someone hit the wrong button. They apparently lost a Sentinel near Needles, California in 2008 that may have played a role in removing the kill switch that would have destroyed the aircraft.

It's interesting that it hasn't occurred to any of the people posting here that the "shoot-down" of the RQ-170 by the Iranians was actually something we did on purpose. They claimed to have taken control of the drone and flown it to a safe landing. The reality is that the communications between these drones and the command and control facility are encrypted. Taking control of one of these, unless you want someone to do it, is pretty much impossible. It's a common ploy in the war of disinformation to allow some "secret" to fall into the hands of the adversary, when it's actually something you want them to think it is good info. We have done this to the Iranians before, and probably will do it again. Years ago, the Iranians illegally obtained the control systems for the centrifuges needed to enrich uranium. What they didn't know was that there was malware planted in these systems, which replicated itself, spread through their secure networks, and caused the centrifuges to run away until they flew apart. No one has claimed responsibility for this, but you can bet one of the countries that would like to see their nuclear program slowed down allowed them to obtain the "illegal" control systems.

Currently if you are talking about equivalent sized airframes costs are about 3 to 1, ie you can operate 3 drones for the cost of one strike aircraft. It would have to be a whole lot cheaper to make a throw away cost effective.

Good for Kratos and good summary of the fundamental superiority of pilotless combat aircraft. I might add to your list the inherent ability to make them stealthier because of their smaller size and no cockpit. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that, once they're detected and the missiles start flying, they essentially become decoys for any piloted aircraft accompanying them. This could be accentuated by deliberately making them less stealthy than the piloted planes, perhaps by simply popping out small radar reflectors or IR sources.

Operational deployment of the XN-1 LaWS was tested on the USS Ponce (AFSB-1) in 2014-15 and appears to have worked well. It appears to have about 33 kilowatts of power and thus is a bit anemic and would require a fairly long dwell time depending upon all the limiting factors above.

Lara Seligman has covered LaWS for "Inside the Navy." Perhaps James Drew could get her to elucidate for us.

Kratos drones are still in development, and LM is building a 180 degree laser for the F-35 that they tested on a Cessna. Check out foxtrot alpha "Lockheed's New Laser Super Turret Could Change Air Combat Forever" with pics. the navy is already shooting down drones with a Raytheon Ship-born laser and they have demonstrated a Free Electron Laser (FEL) for a megawatt-Class Laser Beam. The Ponce laser was a very low power test that worked. Lasers are coming along fast and I stand by my statement about needing stealth for drones.

Newsletter Signup

By clicking below, I acknowledge and agree to Penton's Terms of Service
and to Penton's use of my contact information to communicate with me about Penton's or its third-party
partners' products, services, events and research opportunities. Penton's use of the information I
provide will be consistent with Penton's Privacy Policy.

I acknowledge and agree to Penton's Terms of Service and to Penton's
use of my contact information to communicate with me about offerings by
Penton, its brands, affiliates and/or third-party partners, consistent
with Penton's Privacy Policy.*